No, the delay came from the time it took from you being at the age where you enjoyed new movies to being at the age you are now. It's a universal constant, best expressed as a function of X + ~15 or 25 years, where X is the birth year of anyone who complains that "Music/movies/everything was better back in the day, it sucks now!"

I hate to say this, but I'm 36 years old now, and when I look at movies from the 80's, I am sooooo happy it's 2011. A mediocre movie from 2011 tends to be more entertaining than cult movies of that decade. Even stuff like Citizen Kane, usually proclaimed to be the best thing since sliced bread, is excruciatingly slow on the uptake and generally unwatchable unless you zip through it at three times the speed.

There are certain movies that are timeless to me. The Shining is still interesting to this day. As is Casablanca, and I'm sure I can come up with a list, like Brando's On the Waterfront, the Godfather and other cult films that are deservedly up there. But the amount of trite shit that has emanated from the movie and music business is staggering. But even respectable titles like Blade Runner don't stand the test of time completely. IMHO, The Fifth Element is far less passé.

I think the people that look at all the stuff that comes out now and compare it to one or two great movies from three decades ago just suffer from selective memory usage. Seriously. Have you looked at Back to the Future with adult eyes? It's insufferable.

Because no one has bothered to preserve the Waterboys of the "classic" film years. They were made, it's just that no one cares about them beyond the MST3K guys. The Baroque period had their versions of Nickelback, too.

In 20 years Nickelback will be as forgotten as Bach's contemporary, Farthingbach.

Racist? Come on buddy, do you even know what racism is? Irrational horseshit claims of racism for any remark about a nationality is the number one indicator of being a whiny bastard. Insensitive, sure. Racist? Hardly. Racist would be saying that the radiation from the nukes probably made them in to the inferior sub-human creatures they are today.

Oh please! Have you heard the fingernails on a chalkboard screeching that Yoko calls "singing"? Nuking her from orbit is the ONLY way to be sure pal, as you sure as hell wouldn't want to get within earshot to make sure she was down.....shudder.

As for TFA, how many big fat checks did the ones in charge get to cash? Bribing elected officials, whether with big fat checks or by offering cushy jobs to them and their families, should be seen as what it is....treason. And all those that commit treason should be lined up and shot, period. They are a bigger threat to democracy than any nutball with a bomb and a cause, because they cause permanent damage to democracy whereas the nutball's mess can be cleaned up.

Maybe Marx was right, that all capitalist societies will destroy themselves from within. That the greed will eventually because so rank and foul that the people will turn on them. Lenin said a capitalist will sell you the rope you hang him with, and since Citizens United all the obvious bribery here in the states while so many are hurting really makes me wonder if they were right. I had hoped maybe the EU would be a little better off than we are but it looks like the big fat checks cash just as well there.

Germany does not have the concept of copyright.It has "Urheberrecht". (Which the organized crime loves to confuse with copyright.)Urheberrecht is like author's right. And you can't give it away. If you made something, you have that right, nobody else, and nobody else ever will, even if you want it, and even if you sign it away. (That contract would be invalid.)

Also, nobody gives a fuck anymore about what those criminals think they can hallucinate-up to further their protection racket.They are criminals, and I treat them as such.

The last time they tried to put up a propaganda stand at our main train station, I ripped off their posters, took the megaphone, and made people chase them out of the place.The next time I'll not be so nice.

You know the state of the industry today don't you? The publishers have dominated the market in every possible way all the way to routinely paying their racketeering fines as a "cost of doing business" when doing their payola schemes with the broadcasters. It is, let's say, a difficult market for an independent to get into the market. What's more, it has been shown that the overzealous publishing industry has been suing people for playing independent music in public under the p

The trouble is that the U.S. Congress uses EU insanity as an excuse to "harmonize" its copyright legislation to match what foreign countries offer in a game of copyright leapfrog. Otherwise, what's left of the U.S.-headquartered music and film industry claims it will leave the country. This was the argument for the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 in the United States.

I can't speak for the EU, but at least in the US, the legal thinking is that you can't make it indefinite due to the U.S. Constitution ("To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"). Unfortunately, the Supremes seem to think that any number is fine...so yes, 90 years or 100,000 years would theoretically be fine, as long as it is not "infinity".

There are people with money and a vested interest in extending the copyright, but there are no organized groups with money lobbying against this. So, every time this rolls around in ANY country with a copyright system, it will get extended.

politicians will roll over for any group with lobbyists, when there isn't any organized opposition. It is in their interest to pass laws that people with influence like.

Announcing the ruling, the council of the European Union said: "Performers generally start their careers young and the current term of protection of 50 years often does not protect their performances for their entire lifetime.

"Therefore, some performers face an income gap at the end of their lifetimes."

But you see this doesn't make the recording companies any money. Do you really think the government gives a crap about the artist even if they are multimillionaires where there are companies that rake in billions.

Maybe they should just be assigned an accountant to help them INVEST their money made at their peak. If they didn't make enough, then yes, get a job. It's rather sad that you can do nothing in life and complain about it, then have people sympathize with you about it to the point of giving you a larger allowance to do nothing.

Oh right. Like you aren't going to continue to get paid for the work you're doing now through your elderly years. Why shouldn't artists be entitled to the same thing ditch diggers and chimney sweeps get?

Ditch diggers and chimney sweeps pay into retirement plans - they don't continue to get paid for having dug that ditch/cleaned that chimney for the rest of eternity, combined with some uninvolved company continuing to be allowed to collect money for that chimney having been swept years and decades after their deaths.

By all means, I fully support the idea of artists being allowed to pay into retirement plans, and even encourage that they do so. It will help them deal with that income gap at the end of their lives that ditch diggers and chimney sweeps face when they're too old to be able to continue digging ditches and sweeping chimneys.

Meanwhile, if they're not actually doing anything before then, maybe the artists should try to get a job? It's what ditch diggers and chimney sweeps who are out of work do.

This past weekend I was at a barbeque sitting talking to three guys all about my age (early 40's). After a few minutes I found out that one was a cop, recently retired who was collecting a healthy pension and was trying to decide if he wanted to get another job or just do some traveling and enjoy himself. The other was a postal worker who was upset because the union has told everyone to work slower because postal mail is down over 20% and there isn't enough work for everyone but according to union rules nobody can ever be laid off. The third was a city fireman who has retired and was outfitting his boat for a year-long trip from New York down to the Caribbean with his entire family.

After a few moments of this it struck me that I was paying for all of this.I was the only one of the three that was generating money from outside the government system and paying into it. All three of them were getting paid from the government, were not working as hard as me or not at all, and their taxes are an accounting trick because the money was going from the government to them and back to the government.

Police and Fire pensions are partially funded by the government and a contribution is required to be made by the members as well - In theory. In practice, many states have made no contributions to the public employee pensions for years. My state is claiming it will make a payment this year, but if it does it will be the third time in 11 years it actually has...

I don't know about the whole country, but at least in the Northeast, New York State is the only one that has fu

It's called a retirement plan. Just because employers traditionally included this as a perk, does not mean you "continue to get paid for the work you're doing now". Artists, contractors, small business owners - they all have to arrange for their own retirement savings, and if they don't, well, they're going to live a spartan life the day they stop working.

If a chimney sweep didn't save up for retirement, and suddenly realized no one needs chimney sweeps anymore, what would they do ? Jump off a bridge ?

Anti-copyright people at this time think more like economists. We look at incentives, rather than goals. The incentive in the situation you describe is for people to kill off artists so they can have all their stuff for free. That is a perverse incentive.

No, originally copyright was 14 years. Then we felt sorry for artists with popular songs still being played while they were broke. Then we felt sorry for their spouses and kids they were supporting... Now what?

Here's the REAL question that proves the point best: Do artists (families) get to renegotiate the contract terms for the extended 20 years? The record company didn't create the work, or extend the copyright... Why do THEY get a FREE 20 years more??

As other posters have noted, the original point of copyright was never to guarantee someone a lifetime income.

That said, if this is the new purpose, then change copyright to exceed 60 years if and only if the copyright has been continuously in the possession of the musician from the start. There is zero need for companies to have an extended copyright. Of course, we all know that's what it's really about...

Correct, but to be fair the original point of copyright law in Europe was to regulate and control printers. The crown got control over what could be printed and printers got a monopoly (limited time, could be reissued). It's much easier to monitor the printing of seditious materials when only a handful of people can legally print.
I like the new purpose better than the original...

Also require the copyright to be continuously marketed, or the copyright lapses. No more Disney putting titles in the vault to maximize the value of their intellectual property; out of print book, public domain, etc.

This law shouldn't take effect retroactively. It's making me want to say "fuck the system". I've already bought a couple of Beatles albums legally, but I should probably just download the rest out of spite (and justice).

The thing is, most of us get paid for the work we do, but no more. If we want to get paid more, guess what? We have to work more.

But not the artists! No, once they create something, apparently, they are entitled to get paid for it the rest of their lives, and then once they die, their children get paid for it, and their children's children. Or more likely, the company that distributed it gets paid indefinitely for it.

What's left out of these conversations is this: They got paid for what they were doing when they were doing it. Why didn't they do what the rest of us normal folks have to do, save up money in a retirement plan? After all, once I retire, I certainly don't expect my company to keep paying me for the work I'm doing today, let alone the company I worked for 20 years ago to keep paying me for those Windows 3.1 PCs I set up and repaired at the time. No, instead, I contribute regularly to my 401k plan so that once I do get older, I don't have to depend on still getting paid for work I did 50 years before.

Meanwhile, by extending the copyright, they are denying our society our cultural heritage. I can't share with kids of today what music was like back in my youth because it's irrevocably locked up by copyrights until well after I'll be dead. Everyone keeps forgetting that the purpose of copyrights is not to guarantee artists an income for a lifetime. It is, at least according to the U.S. Constitution, "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." How does this possibly promote the progress of science and useful arts? Do people honestly think that a 25-year-old is not going to create works of art because they're worried about it falling into the public domain when they're 75 years old instead of 95? That's ridiculous.

Art is an investment. You typically do the work up front for free, and then you hope to make the money back selling copies for years to come. The problem here is that it's not the artists that own the rights, it's the labels, and the labels don't do jack shit to earn their money in most cases, or at least not in proportion to the amount they invest. It's not uncommon for them to place all the risk on the group and then pocket nearly all the proceeds of the album sales.

Going much beyond 50 years is a travesty. There is some incentive to be had from 50 years, many artists hope to be able to provide for their family for a period after their death, and extending copyright doesn't guarantee income.

I'd wager that, for most works, there isn't much income to be made past 14 years. In fact, it probably breaks down like this: 90% of musical works make nearly all their money in the first 5 years and then makes nearly nothing. 5% likely bottom out after the first 10 years and 4% after the first 15 years. But thanks to that 1% that keeps making money after 15 years have passed, we get lobbying to keep extending copyright.

In fact, if anyone wants to do the legwork, here's Wikipedia's listing of albums rele

Interesting to look back. The thing that jumps out at me there is how many bands released multiple albums in a given year. Seems like you have to wait years between albums these days.

Of all of those listed, I own 3: Kraftwerk's Computer World, Queen's greatest hits, and Blondie's greatest hits. All were purchased back in the 90's when I was in college. Queen was on tape, and broke some time ago, so while I feel entitled to the songs I no longer have a means of playing them. I've probably got several dozen

Adding years adds incentive to create works, probably also beyond 50 years as you say, and that benefits the world so that's good.

Do you really think that when the Rolling Stones were recording their songs in the 60s they were thinking 'you know, if I couldn't rely on copyright protecting my income for the next fifty years I'd just say screw this and go down the pub'?

If you make and sell ANYTHING that does not have a pre-signed sales agreement (ie any consumer good, from socks to music to cars to houses) you get paid only at the time of each sale. If nobody buys your product, you make no money. If your product stays popular for a hundred years (eg Coca-Cola) you continue earning money on it until people stop buying it. EXCEPT for copyrighted stuff, there are no limits on the amount of time you continue to earn money off your product, as long as people still want it.

Whatever changes you do to a piece of software, even long after the creation date, are subject to copyright that extends from the date of update onwards. So even if parts of your code may not be subject to copyright protection, it wouldn't be the entire product -- so your "current" product would never fall into public domain, as long as you maintained it. Of course, people could run the very old versions freely under emulators and whatnot. That's fine: that makes you keep innovating, like the U.S. founders

False analogy. You aren't paid for building a hotel and letting it fall down piece by piece. You're paid for maintaining and staffing the hotel and providing a service to the patrons. If you built the hotel and let it fall down, not only would you not make money but eventually the city would condemn the building and/or repossess the land - and yes, you'd have to either do a major renovation or build a new hotel if you want to continue to earn income.

The real translation here:"The music industry prefers their stars young and naive about the business, so they don't realize how much they're getting screwed by their labels. And because we like to cast off our acts before they're 30, we'll use the fact that they're broke by the time they're 70 as a way to build support for giving us copyrights for longer."

The solutions, for musicians are:1. Don't sign with a label. Many musicians have made it without one, and those who have signed with one generally consider them to be a really bad deal.2. Continue making new music throughout your adult life. If you're a musician, that should be what you want to be doing anyways.3. Promote sharing music as a way of building up your fan base. The Grateful Dead did it, MC Frontalot did it, you can do it too.4. Did I mention that you shouldn't sign with a label?

Without a label, how does a recording artist promote his or her music to people who don't listen to Internet radio?

Perform works live. Get your fans (who like your stuff) to convince their friends to like your stuff. Drop some recordings on Youtube, iTunes, or any other distribution network you can get your hands on.

And without a recognized music publisher, how can a songwriter be sure that his song isn't similar enough to someone else's song to attract lawsuits alleging plagiarism?*

They can't, but neither can a 'recognized music publisher' protect you from that sort of thing. Your options if accused of plagiarism are:1. Give the accuser a cut.2. Cease & desist like they asked.3. Go to court, especially if they don't sound at all similar.

Continue making new music throughout your adult life. If you're a musician, that should be what you want to be doing anyways.

Without a label, how does a recording artist promote his or her music to people who don't listen to Internet radio? A lot of people aren't willing to pay a luxury price for a cellular data plan that would let them replace in-vehicle FM radio with Internet radio. And without a recognized music publisher, how can a songwriter be sure that his song isn't similar enough to someone else's song to attract lawsuits alleging plagiarism?*

As a recording artist who has no label contract or publishing deal, I can tell you that my personal experience has been that Internet radio is no panacea for getting my own music heard and played. The main problem for recording artists is the same as it was back in the 20th Century: it's very, very difficult to get potential listeners' attention. Historically, the role of record labels primarily was promotion of their artists, along with distribution of their work (and, for new artists, the process of "artist development", as well - a term which mostly meant matching raw talent with the right producer to capture the sound that made the A&R guy sign the artist to begin with, and to mold his/her/their sound into a form that would sell records). For physical CDs and vinyl, the labels' distribution arms are still important (and will continue to be, as long as there exist fans who desire a physical CD or vinyl album to add to their collection), digital distribution notwithstanding. But their real importance lies in promotion.

Realistically speaking, the vast majority of unsigned artists have essentially zero ability to mount and sustain a nationwide or global promotion campaign for their own recordings. Getting people to notice we exist is not increasingly easy in the digital age - it's increasingly difficult, because the amount of competition for the listeners' attention has increased so much, as well. There are a kajillion bands out there, all clamoring for an audience, and getting that audience's attention is still the hardest part of getting anything other than esthetic satisfaction from all the effort that goes into recording.

It's easy for/jerks to prattle about how a recording artist should plan make money from playing out and give away his/her/their recordings as promotional devices. The problem is that you simply don't make very much money playing live unless you're already famous. You certainly don't make enough to afford health insurance, for instance, or that 401K that some sneering codemonkey mentioned as a retirement vehicle in a prior post. Working musicians mostly don't have 401Ks. And, if they do, they're way underfunded, because the money just doesn't stretch that far.

For all their parasitic ways, what record labels still bring to the table is the money and machinery to promote the artists they sign, and the music that they make. Payola is still very much alive in the radio industry here in America, for instance. Nowadays, ClearChannel calls it "research fees", but it's still payola, and your music doesn't get played without it. Not to mention billboards, posters, stand-ups, commercials - all those things cost real money, and it's the record labels that pay for them.

As for copyright, I spent three months recording Whatever Happened To The Revolution [starkrealities.com]. That's an average of four hours a day, working six days a week. And I have yet to make a dime off of it. So, when some know-it-all blathers about how I only deserve to get paid once for that effort (and keep in mind that I put a similar amount of time and effort into every song I record) I want to smack that fool upside the head, because he has no idea what being a recording artist - with or without a label contract - is all about.

Yes, I agree that the copyright system is badly broken. From my perspective, t

Disclaimer: I'm musician and once I recorded bunch of pieces which took about 2 years of my life (real instruments, real voice, real mixing). Yeah, I'm perfectionist, sue me. They're released under CC now.

Sorry, but you are wrong and you can claim us as enemies as much as you want - you *don't* have any God/Nature/whatever given rights to profit. You have to earn it. Can't do it as performer or musician, you're not good enough, not lucky enough - sorry, but that's life. That's how things IS for rest of us. Why you should be different, huh? Why people who contributions are really worthy to public releases their copyrighted works under CC or PD or allow share non-commercially? Not all they earn big bucks. So tell me? Maybe they admit that music is just for their hearts, that it's not necessary to bring them profit?

For song and movie it is quite clear that even 20 years from publishing is way too much, but I could live with that. Tell me how many songs have gained creds for their owners after 20 years? Several performers comes into mind, all swimming in money already earned from these songs.

These extensions are not for performers, they're not for authors - they are for companies so they can claim that song is actually their property (according to law, it's not) and so they can tell shareholders - hey, we have billions worth of property, invest in us.

There is a better way: A yearly commercialization fee. If you want to release a song for sale, you must register it and pay a fee for copyright protection. The first year, the fee is one dollar (or one Euro). For subsequent years, the fee is twice what it was in the previous year. You are free to pay the commercialization fees for as long as you wish. If the commercialization fee is not paid, the work goes into the public domain.

Society places an intrinsic worth on the content to consume. Artists need fans to consume there content AND need financial compensation. This proposal is the best compromise between the "greed" of the artist and the "need" of the society.

Copyright was _supposed_ to be for the betterment of everyone. If you want to exploit it for capital gain for any length of time, you can damn well pay for that privilege, otherwise it defaults to the general public which society as a WHOLE is THE

Interesting comment. I've been coding for some thirty years (yeah yeah...) and was in a bank the other day, getting a foreign currency money order and being a slow day, got chatting with the people behind the counter. I used to work at the bank in the IT department, I said. Is [sysname] still in use? Yep, it is. And there's bit of my brainwork in that application, in use some twenty years after I wrote. I'm not getting any cash from the bank for it's continuing use of software I write. Fair enough

Come work call with me at my hospital and I will show you hard work. Stay up until 4am because you're coming down off your high and can't get the song right or because the drugs just don't inspire any more. Be a little tired. Make a mistake and the song sucks. OK come with me and stand here for 11 hours trying to repair some kid's esophagus and liver, when you can't even see straight anymore because you've been working the past 30 hours and remember that if you screw up you're looking at being fired at best and being thrown in jail for manslaughter at worst. Don't talk to me about hard work, ok? Entertainers have somehow convinced people that they belong at the top of the food chain. Real people sometimes do much more important work, and work a hell of a lot harder for their dollar.

As a relative of (classical, in this case) musicians I can tell you that for most musicians performing is quite a tough job, with long hours of travel and practice and a great deal of stress and pressure. For a profession that's difficult to break in to - many people spent huge amounts of time concentrating on practicing, having lessons and at music college and then end up having to find something else they can do with their life and their not very transferrable skills - it isn't usually paid very well, typ

You also seem to have a chip on your shoulder against entertainers and it seems you feel they've perpetrated some kind of hoax on ordinary people.

Well yeah - those sutures I put in you 20 years ago? I own the copyright on them. See it took my unique skill and talent to decide exactly where to put them, exactly what thread to use, and how many to do. So I want you to continue paying me every year because after all you're still benefiting from MY work and MY skill. Or maybe on the other hand I charge you once and do something called "retirement planning" to look after myself in the future, instead of convincing the government that I and my children des

Thanks for the laugh. The first sentence of your reply is simply putting words in my mouth. I pointed out that making money is supposed to be hard and that "real people" work even harder for less. From there you assume it to mean (insert your fabricated argument here), and then assume a whole range of inferences about me, my professional and my personal life. Quite a feat since you don't even know me. It's also clear that you completely miss the point of something called an "analogy". Do you actually believ

You're kind of naive. When the trade bodies in the UK are crowing for 70-year music copyright, what do you think David Cameron is going to do? Put up a brave fight, or fold like Superman on laundry day and complain about how "the EU bureaucracy already made the decision"?

Not in the least... I think you're missing my point, which is they merely advise, etc. It has formally been resolved that they should do it, not its already been done. The article makes it sound like they've passed it into law and it's going to be enforced at 70 years as of today 9/12/2011. Those not living under the EU boot heel probably don't know "how it works".

Lets try a/. car analogy to help you. Some automobile trade association says we, as a group of automakers, should try to make and sell more SUVs and giant trucks. That's nice that they all agree, golf clap for everyone. However, its up to Government Motors to actually roll em off the assembly line and sell them, and its highly likely they will attempt it and maybe even succeed. But don't make the mistake of thinking that the automobile trade association, in itself, by itself, at that meeting, is turning bolts on the assembly line and closing sales on the showroom floor.

There's a lot more "fun" before its done and over with. Expect plenty of follow up news stories as its actually implemented.

But, why an extension to 70 years? Fifty is plenty of time for an artist to reap the rewards of their talents. Plus, I don't think the Stones and Beatles even own the rights to their music from the 60s. Weren't both groups screwed out of their earlier song rights by their managers?

Well, given the current life expectancy of about 80 years, and how a musician's career is basically over by the time they're ten years old, obviously they need 70 years of protection to live off the income.

Right. ALL copyright is theft. Artists should have absolutely no protections along these lines.

Don't know if you're trolling or if your entire post broke my sarcasm meter, but although I don't agree with Copyright as a good means to an end, it is not theft; it's a deal. (between the public and the artists in theory)
The bit that makes it theft is the retroactive extension. If the increased duration was for new works there would be no theft, but there would be a new deal.
That only one side is really repr

The point of copyright is (or rather, was supposed to be) to grant the creator of a work a time-limited exclusivity on the right to copy that work, so that they could easily publish the work and reap the benefits of that publication (while society also reaps the benefits of the new work being published) without the fear that somebody else might usurp it from them, which might otherwise keep them from publicly releasing their work, and thus depriving society of an artistic creation. If it takes you 70 years to accomplish this, however, or even fifty... heck, arguably anything more than 20, then maybe... just maybe, you're just too effing slow.

"The copyright on sound recordings by the Beatles, Rolling Stones and other famous bands was due to expire in the next few years. However, the EU Council has now scuttled any such hopes. The copyright term has been extended from 70 to 90 years with life-supported rockers expressing their delight."

The copyright term has been extended from 70 to 90 years with life-supported rockers expressing their delight."

The cover of Rolling Stone's article in 2031 has a picture of Kieth Richards and he still looks the same as he did in 2011.

He has requested virgin blood sacrifices and the media companies had just succeeded in getting "Aging Rocker Blood Sacrifice" laws pushed through legislatures everywhere. The Robotic Dick Cheney was the first to sign it into law.

Good. I was worried about having to take Ringo or Paul in when thy ended up penniless on the street. Being a fan, I couldn't let that happen to them, but we don't really have a lot os space for permanent house guests.

There is no moral or philosophically defensible position that says someone needs to own a song or a movie for 70 years. The only explanation is greed overstepping all sense of proportion and reason. Disgusting. It just moves me with great anger to make sure I will do my best to hurt the bottom line of those who think dollar signs are more important than the common property of mankind.

it became common property when the artist sang the song or filmed the movie and it entered the minds of millions. he or she can profit on that, for a limited amount of time WE THE PEOPLE define in order to reward them for their innovation with our thanks. unfortunately, lawyer scumbags have extended that period into absurdity

"The fallacy of your argument is the assumption that all artists will be rich and famous..."

i stopped reading there. I never said anything remotely like that. Therefore, you are not worth interacting with because you can't even keep track of what someone actually says.

Before the rise of intellectual property, artists were mostly poor (most of human history, when plenty of art was created). At the height of the age of LPs, cassette tapes, and CDs, artists were mostly poor. In the Internet age, artists are an

It's worth noting that the Swedish Pirate Party's MEP tried to get this issue back to the parliament months ago for a new vote (which should be allowed by the parliament's rules of procedure, since the old vote was done by the previous parliament before the last election in 2009 and there are provisions that allow a new vote if the council is too slow in adopting a directive from the parliament and there's an election inbetween), but the parliament's directorate stalled for four months, and then decided, less than 10 days ago, that the rules didn't apply [wordpress.com] in this case after all.

No need to bribe hundreds of parliamentarians when you can just pay off one or two persons in the directorate.

If this is being done because people are seeing their income drop after 50 years, then I think they deserved the wake up call that everything they've done for the last 50 years is worthless crap, and maybe they should have learned to save some cash for retirement.

Copyrights are supposed to be a bargain where the artist gets a 50 year exclusive right to distribute their work in exchange for releasing the work into the public domain after that term. This is outright theft by the EU from the public domain and we should be making a huge stink about it. If you live in the European Union your culture has just been stolen. Everyone in the EU needs to inundate your representatives with complaints about this because these copyrights have been stolen from each and every one of you!

So yes, they stole from me and you and everyone else on the planet and gave what they stole to corporate interests that probably had no part in producing the art in the first place. In the public domain means I can copy, record make derivative works from and do anything I can think of with that art that is in the public domain. None of that is allowed under copyright so just because a work is available somewhere in some form is not equivalent to the public domain in any sense at all. Without the public dom

Recorded audio. It's separate from the copyright on the actual music, which is owned by the composer or whoever he/she sold it to. Copyright on recorded audio was added with the Rome convention in 1961, when the record companies started realising that people might soon be able to copy records to other media.

The works protected by copyright were typically owned by the aristocrats. Works protected by patents were typically owned by artisans and blue collar workers, historically speaking. No wonder copyright got better treatment than patents.

The beatles are in the top 10 artists on last.fm and that's usually the case in most most music charts that account for all music and not just current releases. Apple certainly wanted to strike a deal to get the Beatles on iTunes so there must be money there. I think it's more the point that the Beatles aren't exactly scraping by and if Please, Please Me went public domain I don't think Paul is going to have to suck dick just to get a warm meal and if Disney really has nothing better than mickey mouse to ke